Yup, first non dome tweeter I actually ever tried. I was not disappointed.
Maybe it's easier than it looks, but I don't want to have to build a computer, and install software in order to buy an active crossover. These items are parts.
I think you're confusing the term "active" with meaning that the amplifiers are in the box, which is not usually the case in Pro Audio (except for Meyer and PK brands). Most major PA brands (L-Acoustic, D&B, Clair) are actively powered by amplifiers that are not in the same enclosure as the drivers. I'm not taking about speakers on a stick. I'm talking about the elite Pro Audio speaker brands. All of them are fully active except one (D&B) that is a combination of active and passive. Sorry, but you clearly don't know the Pro Audio side and that's ok.
The point is that there is a real reason that Pro Audio is almost exclusively active. The benefits are clear. Again, that doesn't mean that active is an excuse for a poor design. It also doesn't mean that everybody knows how to use DSP filters properly. You can still have the same problems as passive filters (running the woofers too high into their breakup modes, poor directivity, etc.). So it doesn't surprise me that there were bad sounding DSP speakers there.
I'm not defending the show. I wasn't there. I've heard terrible sounding active speakers. It's just as easy to mess that up as anything else which is what we're saying. Nobody is preaching. We just understand the technology and enjoy explaining it on this message board.
I'm calmer than you........
I was literally doing woodwork when I read this comment.
And let's not forget: off-axis measurements.
A speaker can be extremely linear on-axis (anechoic measurement) and still sound like crap when you put it in a room.
"Good, Fast, Cheap... pick two if you are lucky, sometimes you only get one"
In this case it means a DSP solution with (1) good performance and reliability (2) convenient to set up and use (3) inexpensive. If you are lucky you can get two of these.
In my case, I want high quality and high performance, and I want the convenience of a single self-contained chunk of hardware that does not involve a PC, operating systems, boot ups, and 6 or 8 cables running this way and that. This means I can not have it cheap... I need to spend some money. For me, the Hypex fusion plate amps are the best option.
Only you can determine what is best for you, but if you want to stay within a tight budget, you may need to be willing to deal with a computer/software based solution.
Maybe we need to stop the war between active and passive and just make a mix .
Has I understand we can reduce H3 using notch or series inductor. Like describe here but this page do not goes deep enough for me to understand exactly how it works with complete examples.
https://audiohorn.net/sciences/speaker-break-up/
And @abstract you seems to said the same here
On the other side @danville you seem to said that it is better with active because we can control cone breakup with active crossover due to less "resistance" (so literally the contrary).
Do both of you can explain more deeply the pros and cons they are seeing ? Does a D-amp with PFFB be the solution since they are not impacted by impedance fluctuation ?
Has I understand we can reduce H3 using notch or series inductor. Like describe here but this page do not goes deep enough for me to understand exactly how it works with complete examples.
https://audiohorn.net/sciences/speaker-break-up/
And @abstract you seems to said the same here
On the other side @danville you seem to said that it is better with active because we can control cone breakup with active crossover due to less "resistance" (so literally the contrary).
Do both of you can explain more deeply the pros and cons they are seeing ? Does a D-amp with PFFB be the solution since they are not impacted by impedance fluctuation ?
No, i belive they just chooses the easiest path 😉
It's hard for me to tell what each unit does.The descriptions are sparse. I have amplifiers with analog rca inputs. I have AVRs with pre-amp inputs, and several 5-ch amplifiers of better quality. I would like it to be part of a HT, and music system at the same time, but not always.. Sometimes I set up a music only system in another room. For music, I use CDs. I don't stream. So, my HT uses a Roku with HDMI to an AVR. From there, I have pre-outs. What would I need to buy? Do I need a computer other than to download software? I have a W7 computer, but never allow it online. All online is using a Chromebook.
What would I need to buy to use pre-out from my AVR into the Rasberry, and then analog out to my amps?
Or analog out from the Rasberry into pre-amp in on an AVR.
Better yet, can I go straight from a BR player using digital, into the Rasberry?
After setup, does a computer need to be connected?
Last edited:
This is such a crucial point. It really is why so many speakers sound bad and it's why the full plethora of measurements are so important.
@pefpef I don't think it's an "either this or that" thing, and my argument was general, not aimed at anyone's specific implementation.
In any case, my personal preference is for full-range speakers, where the requirement is for low SPL or nearfield listening, but let's say a decision has been made to go with a 3-way system. Then I completely agree that there are IMD advantages to splitting the frequency bands before they are amplified. However, I would also look at conservative use of passive filter components "as needed".
IME, tweeters that are padded down with resistors sound quite different from the exact same tweeters that are attenuated actively and run straight-through without any passive components in between them and the amplifier. For me, that was the seed that led me on a journey of discovery with damping factors / output impedance, etc.
If the source is already digital, then there's no (repeated) A2D conversion loss, so it seems almost a shame not to implement appropriate filters that complement any filters already done in analogue.
One neat trick that can be tried is a sliding damping factor, using just an air-cored choke as a passive low-pass filter for a woofer or mid-range, and active filters to add pre-emphasis. For instance, a passive 500Hz filter frequency could be combined with active correction for a net 2kHz cut-off.
In any case, my personal preference is for full-range speakers, where the requirement is for low SPL or nearfield listening, but let's say a decision has been made to go with a 3-way system. Then I completely agree that there are IMD advantages to splitting the frequency bands before they are amplified. However, I would also look at conservative use of passive filter components "as needed".
IME, tweeters that are padded down with resistors sound quite different from the exact same tweeters that are attenuated actively and run straight-through without any passive components in between them and the amplifier. For me, that was the seed that led me on a journey of discovery with damping factors / output impedance, etc.
If the source is already digital, then there's no (repeated) A2D conversion loss, so it seems almost a shame not to implement appropriate filters that complement any filters already done in analogue.
One neat trick that can be tried is a sliding damping factor, using just an air-cored choke as a passive low-pass filter for a woofer or mid-range, and active filters to add pre-emphasis. For instance, a passive 500Hz filter frequency could be combined with active correction for a net 2kHz cut-off.
You are 100% defending active speakers.
My favorite is when a new person pops in asking a simple question about a passive crossover and 3 active dudes pop in try to convince him to buy an $800 mini DSP. Then it spirals into some active speaker discussion and the one new guy is long gone.
The kii guy was trying to sell this as a benefit. Saying that the biggest advantage to his speakers was that they are so directive you can only hear them in a 10 degree window. Was the best selling of a design flaw I had ever heard.
There seem to be several errors on that page which could lead to misunderstandings.
It is dead clear you found the speakers you heard at the show using DSP didn't sound good, and since you know so little about DSP, you have decided that was the reason they sounded bad.
I saw a youtube video last night of an AXPONA exhibitor explaining his "Fourier Transform" monstrosity of a loudspeaker system that is physically incapable to sound the same in more than one room position.
If I wasn't aware of the basic error made in the system design it would have been easy to blame the DSP, as most of those who heard it did.
Most questions about crossovers can't be answered simply.
That said, best to ignore anyone that would try to convince someone to use DSP in every situation.
Art
For me it´s complicated enough to build speakers & try to get good at it.
It incluedes knowlege about drivers, thier working volyme, damping, ultimate frequency of use, cone breakup etc.
And understand the simulationsprograms, bafflestep, radiation, nulls etc.
Then learn to build the cabinette and try to be good at that, inclueding everything that it entails.
And then to also adding a complicated technology like DSP doesn't sound healthy.
For sure a real competent person who is well versed in the DSP technology, have a real good chanse to "get the best" out of a not so good speaker, but you can put makeup on a pig to.
The industry of course wants us to buy more products (just like the pharmaceutical industry), but that doesn't mean that expensive products such as power purifiers, thick cables & other maby "snake oil products" make everything "better".
That was my experience. It will not be swayed by people saying "but but but... active is so much better". No, you've got the wrong person. To the three of us, the passive systems sounded better. They were more natural. And these are 3 people who go to live shows weekly. Sometimes multiple shows a week. And, if I am being told right, we are all listening to active systems every time we go. Yet, we all preferred the passive systems at the show. This was an experience, not something up for discussion. Please realize that. Knowledge about the technology does not change our experience.
Begs the next question: Do active systems require knowledge about how they work for them to sound good? Pretty sure you are trying to answer that with a resounding yes. I find that interesting.
New people do not know who to ignore and who to listen to. This situation happens even more on the PE forum. I am not active there but I do stalk and I see it a lot. The active guys popping into threads and making it a "but active is better" thread with almost no prompting is a sickness across the community as a whole.
Summary:
*Goes to show and instead of talking purely about speakers they like and didn't like in a constructive manner - uses the context of the show to compare those speakers to their own superior talents and skills at building perfect speakers at home, and how professional companies could learn a lot from them because said companies largely don't know what they're doing and produce expensive rubbish.
* makes a dogmatic blanket statement completely bagging out DSP entirely, says all DSP speakers are objectively inferior.
*wonders why people politely offer an alternate viewpoint.
*Goes to show and instead of talking purely about speakers they like and didn't like in a constructive manner - uses the context of the show to compare those speakers to their own superior talents and skills at building perfect speakers at home, and how professional companies could learn a lot from them because said companies largely don't know what they're doing and produce expensive rubbish.
* makes a dogmatic blanket statement completely bagging out DSP entirely, says all DSP speakers are objectively inferior.
*wonders why people politely offer an alternate viewpoint.